Misc Icons Versus Objectdock Versus IconPackager

Better moderation and guidelines needed

Published on September 30, 2005 By WebGizmos In WinCustomize Talk

I'm curious as to why the "Objectdock" library is being flooded with submissions from the "Misc Icons" library that clearly are not "Misc Icons?" Shouldn't these be two different libraries? They are both starting to look the same lately. And doesn't "Misc" mean just that...misc...as in the odd icon? It seems that whole Icon packages are either broken down, or not packaged and submitted as "Misc Icons" instead of them being packaged and submitted as a package to the "Iconpackager" library, which if you look through the library of "Objectdock" you can see there is nothing "Misc" or odd about many of these icons...since they could easily make up a whole package. It's as if I'm watching Mormegils icon tutorial all over again.

Comments (Page 1)

Sleeping Dragon

on Sep 30, 2005

IconPackager is a program that applies icons to all of your windows icons (ideally). You can take that same set of icons and put it in misc icons in order for people to use the icons any way they seem fit (no program applying them). Some may be misc program icons that were not plugged into the package. Take that same set, and if they are .png images instead of .ico than they can be used in ObjectDock.

This is how the same set of icons can be in all three categories. A package that automatically replaces your icons, misc icons to use wherever you like, and .pngs to be used in ObjectDock

WebGizmos

on Sep 30, 2005

I got all that SD...But I still don't understand why they need to be in all 3 libraries. Usually when downloading single icons they have the .pngs already included. And as far as Iconpackager, you can already easily take a single icon from a package and use it any way you want or convert it to a .png for use in Objectdock. So this is why I question why 3 libraries are flooded with the same submission. Doesn't make any sense to me.

Sleeping Dragon

on Sep 30, 2005

Marketing? If I sell ice cream, I would sell the same flavor in as many different markets and sizes possible. "All New" is often just the same old, but it is proven to get more sales (uploads) if it's broken out in different packages. I understand your point that it does not need to be that way, though. ...and I agree.

Sleeping Dragon

on Sep 30, 2005

It may also be the case that not everyone knows how to change an .ico to a .png and a .png into an icon. Not everyone submits the .pngs with their misc icons nor do they provide the icons with the .pngs. My only point being that there may need to be all three sections and a single group of icons may serve more purpose being in all three for Mr General Public than only being in one. Just a thought.

rabidrobot

on Sep 30, 2005

I always figured *.ico's go in the Misc Icon gallery, and *.pngs go in the ObjectDock gallery - and if you're nice you'll include both in the file but upload to only one gallery (I choose the OD gallery myself).

I hear you on the package deal, though. Even if there isn't a full IconPackager set, a skinner could conglomerate some images. A Start panel set, say, instead of a My Pc icon, a Search icon, a Network Places icon... you get the idea.

I totally sympathize with the desire to get a lot of downloads, but it is important to think of the other skinners who want time on the front page as well as the convenience for the end users.

Frogboy

on Sep 30, 2005

IconPackager being its own section is a definite need.

ObjectDock should have ObjectDock themes and individual PNG files.

Misc. icons should be small groups or individual .ICO files.

The format largely determines the section.

GhoS

on Sep 30, 2005

Makes sense then how Frogboy describes it that the artist submits the different types for the different application.
I agree that part of the problem is you can get flooded with new releases of icons in the gallery. One reason I am happy to have the Skin Browser in SDC, I can filter out the ones I don't want to see in the new listing. They are still there, just I have go find them if I need them in the main list.

Posted via WinCustomize Browser/Stardock Central

ama02

on Sep 30, 2005

I make PNG icons for use in ObjectDock, and usually throw in a regular ICO version of that into the zip, but I only upload it to the ObjectDock library, as that is my main focus. I hope that's okay.

WebGizmos

on Sep 30, 2005

ama02...Thats not a problem...as you said your making .png's for Objectdock use..the .ico is an added extra.

WebGizmos

on Sep 30, 2005

Brad...Iconpackager is definitely a needed library..no argument there. Objectdock as you said should have themes and individual png files. But it just seems to me that that Objectdock library can easily be abused by simply changing icons to .png's and then basically the only difference between Iconpackager, Misc Icons & Objectdock is calling a file .ico or .png. yet still containing both files. Icons are the only file I can think of where this can take place.

This is why I would think icons should be kept with Iconpackager & Misc Icons and just have the .pngs included with the icon download instead of seperating them into 2 different libraries, but yet packaging them the same. As it is now, icons are being packaged with png's and png's are packaged with icons, but they are being called 2 different things.

Is this making and sense to anyone or do I need to take my meds?

Sleeping Dragon

on Sep 30, 2005

s this making and sense to anyone or do I need to take my meds?

Did you bring enough for the rest of the class?

WebGizmos

on Sep 30, 2005

Corky_O

on Oct 01, 2005

As it is now, icons are being packaged with png's and png's are packaged with icons, but they are being called 2 different things.

This is probably due to mods not wanting to reject uploads based on improper packaging.

It was made clear shortly after the creation of the "misc. icons" library, that authors were to upload ".ico" files to the misc. icons library, and ".png" files to the ObjectDock library.

It would seem that not all authors are aware of this guideline.

WebGizmos

on Oct 01, 2005

Wizop Corky O...I think in most cases its fair to say that many authors are uploading .png files, but I've seen just as many including icons along with them. This is why, in my opinion, they should all just be kept in the misc icons library, except for single png's that were made for specific programs. Then they can just package the icons and png's together, rather than flood the Objectdock library with png's which are basically just converted icons.

The thing is, if it weren't for the tabbed docks, zoomers, and docklets which pretty much get buried by these .png files you couldn't tell the difference between the Misc Icons & Objectdock libraries. And from what I've seen lately, many of these single png files should really be packaged since they really don't appear to be just odd icons, but rather part of a theme that should be in a package.

When I first started going to the Objectdock library you could easily find docklets and such to use with Objectdock without much searching, but most of those things have been buried deep in the library because of these icons in png's clothing.

horizon

on Oct 01, 2005

Maybe it should just be rejected with a "please resubmit to these to the appropriate library" notice? If someone included a bootscreen or logon with their wallpaper and uploaded it to the wallpaper section is that not what would happen?

Might help to at least clarify what each section is for.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!